Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harbin Flight Academy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Harbin Flight Academy

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, with both sources failing WP:SIGCOV in my books. A previous PROD nomination was contested by page author and sole contributor. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and China. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for the reason that the article was only created yesterday. I see from a quick Google search there's more English language sources available, and there's probably a lot more in Chinese that a Chinese-speaking editor has the opportunity to find and use to flesh out the article. Had the article been older and there was time to improve it I'd have agreed with the nom and been inclined towards a delete. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saucysalsa30: Could you please give a few links of sources please? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JML1148 Hi! I didn't search much earlier but here's a few. [1][2][3] Having looked again, there doesn't appear to be too much in English. The first is a report from the US Air Force's China Aerospace Studies Institute which seems to take a lot of interest in the flight academy. Given that the article is only a day old, my assumption is that the article creator plans on adding more sourcing or otherwise improving the article, which was the reason for my vote. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for providing the links. I am not sure if any of the sources meet WP:SIGCOV, although link 2 is borderline. I would encourage the page creator RightQuark to find Chinese-language sources, as they have indicated to me on the talk page that they speak Chinese and English. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will find I've added additional English and Chinese sources and information to the page (now with 18 separate sources). Again, this is not to be understood as an exhaustive list of mentions of the academy, but it is an indicator that the academy does receive significant coverage from varied sources and its page is likely to continue growing. RightQuark (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and there isn't too much in English about the article subject. RightQuark added a lot more sourcing, but how significant and in-depth it is and how reliable and reputable the publication, author(s), and content is of each and if it confirms notability is open to discussion. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage exists in both English and Chinese-language material that the article requires no original research. Its mention is not trivial and constitutes entire sections of official reports such as The People's Liberation Army's 37 Academic Institutions and PLA Air Force: Bomber Force Organization by the China Aerospace Studies Institute (CASI) of the United States Air Force. These official reports, written by the uncontestably most authoritative author on the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), Kenneth W. Allen, are reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (as specified in WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV). Additional information on this subject continues to present itself in Chinese-language news sources and English-language research.

The Harbin Flight Academy is the sole bomber training academy and one of only three flight schools in the Chinese Air Force. As demonstrated by the official research studies by the United States Air Force, knowledge of this institution is integral for understanding of the Chinese Air Force – an organization that has earned new focus in the West and, pending the potential of future conflicts against the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the United States, lacks no notability for an encyclopedia. Those who remain unswayed by this justification would find that an sizable number of air force academies and training schools worldwide already documented on Wikipedia are in need of similar attention. In good faith, I've reorganized the clauses of a sentence in the article's lead to reinforce the already clear significance of being the only institution in the Chinese Air Force to train bomber pilots.

For the second document, it seems you're relying on the number of times the academy is mentioned in full name (likely using Ctrl+F). If you read Sections, 4-27, 4-28, and 4-29 you'll see a section dedicated to the three flight academies which provides seven full-text pages of information on Harbin Flight Academy including personnel, history, the organization structure of the 1950s, early 2000s, post-2012 and the phases of education, recruits, degrees and areas of study, recruitment numbers, and leadership/staff. Further, the overall length of the document is irrelevant because it is dependent on the number and scope of institutions presented. I wouldn't question the notability of George Washington on the fact that he only occupies a few pages in a book on the top 500 most influential military leaders. Here's another report in which Harbin Flight Academy plays a notable role: Initial Fighter Pilot Training in the PLA Air Force. As a English and Chinese reader, I intend to continue incorporating further sources and information into this article — it is only a day old.

SIGCOV requires sources: "[address] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The proposing user writes "I PROD'd this page because the two documents did not meet WP:SIGCOV in my books", but more specificity is required to demonstrate why the article doesn't meet the Wikipedia's enumerated criteria. Are these sources not addressing the topic directly? Not in detail? Original research is needed to extract the content? It's only a trivial mention? RightQuark (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For context what is going on here, I direct other editors to Talk:Harbin Flight Academy. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see plenty of coverage when searching the Chinese name on Baidu: [4]. Some random examples: CCTV report People's Daily Xinhua Jumpytoo Talk 06:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent edits to page, notability and sufficient sources should be safely met. Also don’t think this page condition justified jumping on someone one day after they made the page, there are far less substantive pages deemed worth keeping. (Edit: also those original cites weren’t bad, Kenneth Allen is the definitive English scholar on the PLAAF, and no source I’ve found in Chinese has ever even rivaled his breadth or scope (China's censorship limits this), as such he has near unimpeachable qualifications on the subject.) Abovfold (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is now enough sourcing to establish notability and pass WP:GNG, so I will now be withdrawing my nomination. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.